•'> 


A Digest  of 

“The  Metric  versus  the  English 
System  of  Weights  and 
Measures” 

From  Research  Report  No.  42 


SPECIAL  REPORT  NUMBER  20 
December,  1921 


National  Industrial  Conference  Board 





Wy~  v 


Mf  ■■  V ^ -'j 

, ' * : ' '2  • . • ■ 


«!&>'  ...'• 


DUKE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 
DURHAM,  N.  C. 


A DIGEST  OF 


“THE  METRIC  versus  THE  ENGLISH 
SYSTEM  OF  WEIGHTS  AND 
MEASURES” 

FROM  RESEARCH  REPORT  No.  42 


Special  Report  Number  20 
December,  1921 


National  Industrial  Conference  Board 
10  East  39th  Street 
New  York  City 


Copyright,  1921 


National  Industrial  Conference  B 


d ,3  ?/ 


3 3 / 

■77  ?.  7 7 5 


a.X-  )3  (*  ^ 

A Digest  of  “The  Metric  versus  the 

English  System  of  Weights 
and  Measures” 

From  Research  Report  No.  42 


Research  Report  No.  42,  from  which  the  following  excerpts 
are  taken,  concisely  presents  facts  and  arguments  bearing  upon 
the  question  as  to  whether  the  Metric  system  should  be  substi- 
tuted for  the  English  system  of  weights  and  measures  in  the 
United  States.  The  aim  of  the  Report  is  to  provide  a basis  for 
intelligent  judgment  upon  this  question,  rather  than  to  express 
an  opinion. 

The  Report  represents  the  results  of  careful  scientific  inquiry 
by  the  National  Industrial  Conference  Board,  aided  by  an 
Advisory  Committee  of  prominent  industrialists  of  broad  bus- 
iness experience  and  scientific  attainment,  some  of  whom  favor 
and  others  oppose  the  compulsory  adoption  of  the  Metric  system 
in  the  United  States.  The  full  approval  of  the  Report  by  all 
members  of  the  Advisory  Committee  and  by  the  members  of 
the  National  Industrial  Conference  Board  indicates  that  it 
presents  accurate  and  comprehensive  information  on  the  sub- 
ject and  gives  an  impartial  synopsis  of  arguments  on  both  sides. 

The  English  system,  with  the  inch  and  foot  as  units  of  linear 
measure,  the  quart  and  gallon  for  liquid  measure,  and  the  ounce 
and  pound  for  weight,  is  now  with  few  exceptions  in  universal 
use  in  the  LTnited  States.  The  Metric  system  which  it  is  pro- 
posed to  substitute  for  it,  is  briefly  described  in  its  main 
features  in  the  following  excerpt: 

The  fundamental  unit  of  length  in  the  Metric  system  is  the  meter.  . . 

The  system  is  so  devised  as  to  provide  a close  interrelation  between  the 
units  of  length,  capacity  and  weight.  The  liter,  which  is  the  basic 
unit  of  capacity,  is  the  volume  of  one-tenth  meter  cubed.  The  gram, 
which  is  the  fundamental  unit  of  mass,  is  the  weight  of  a volume  of 
pure  water  at  maximum  density,  equal  to  one-hundredth  of  a meter 
cubed. 

With  respect  to  the  multiplication  and  division  of  units,  the  Metric 
system  is  distinctly  decimal.  . . The  meter  is  divided  into  tenths 
(decimeters),  hundredths  (centimeters)  and  thousandths  (milli- 

1 


meters),  while  for  more  minute  measures  the  millimeter  is  further 
divided  into  hundredths.  The  larger  unit  of  linear  measure  is  the 
kilometer,  of  1,000  meters.  In  a similar  manner  the  liter,  for  capacity 
measures,  is  subdivided  into  deciliters  and  milliliters,  and  the  larger 
units  are  the  dekaliter,  the  hectoliter  and  the  kiloliter.  The  larger 
units  of  weight  are  the  kilogram  of  1,000  grams,  the  quintal  of  100 
kilograms,  and  the  ton  of  1,000  kilograms.1 

In  considering  legislation  now  before  Congress,  certain  ques- 
tions of  paramount  interest  immediately  arise  and  press  for 
answer.  These  relate  to: 

a.  Intrinsic  merits  of  the  Metric  and  English  systems. 

b.  Present  use  of  the  Metric  and  English  systems  generally  and 
in  special  fields. 

c.  Effect  on  American  industry  generally  and  on  fundamental 
mechanical  standards  of  substitution  of  Metric  for  English  system. 

d.  Effect  of  such  substitution  on  the  general  public. 

e.  Cost  of  such  substitution. 

f.  Length  of  transition  period  as  experienced  in  making  similar 
change  in  other  countries. 

g.  The  need  for  compulsory  legislation  to  effect  such  a change. 

h.  The  nature  and  the  extent  of  the  demand  for  a change. 

i.  Comparison  of  Metric  and  English  systems  for  universal  use. 

A basis  for  intelligent  judgment  on  these  questions  is  provided 
in  the  following  excerpts  from  the  Report.  It  must  be  borne 
in  mind,  of  course,  that  the  principal  facts  and  arguments  here 
quoted  are  necessarily  in  the  nature  of  summary  statements 
presented  out  of  their  context  and  without  the  details  or  testi- 
mony supporting  them.  For  this  reason,  in  forming  final  judg- 
ment with  respect  to  the  controversy  surrounding  the  two 
systems,  the  excerpts  here  given  should  not  be  regarded  as 
standing  alone.  They  give  important  findings  borne  out  by 
the  data  contained  in  the  report,  which  data  must  be  consulted 
for  a full  understanding  of  the  subject. 

(a)  Intrinsic  Merits  of  the  Metric  and  English  Systems.2 

Metric  Contentions. 

....Metric  proponents  picture  the  ideal  system  of  weights  and 
measures  as  one  that  is  constructed  to  have  the  smallest  possible 
number  of  units,  simple  ratios  between  the  units,  and  a simple  corre- 
lation between  the  units  of  length,  capacity,  and  weight,  i.  e.,  the 
simpler  the  structure,  they  contend,  the  more  readily  will  the  system 
be  comprehended.  The  Metric  system,  they  insist,  with  its  decimal 

>Pp.  13-14  of  the  Report. 

2For  detailed  Metric  contentions  and  English  answers  see  pp.  123-140  of  Report. 

2 


and  scientific  correlations  meets  these  ideal  requirements.  It  is 
simple  in  structure  and  its  units  are  easily  convertible,  being  scientifi- 
cally related  and  divided  into  tenths  and  multiples  of  ten;  the  units 
are  few  and  their  names  are  easily  learned,  for  which  reasons,  they 
say,  the  whole  system  is  more  readily  comprehended  by  the  average 
person  than  is  the  English  system.1 

As  for  convenience,  Metric  proponents  contend  that  those  elements 
of  their  system  which  make  for  simplicity  likewise  make  for  con- 
venience, viz.,  uniform  decimal  and  scientific  relationships  between 
the  units.  They  assert  also  that  their  system  has  proved  to  be  readily 
adapted  to  mechanical  and  other  needs  and  comprehensive  in  filling  the 
requirements  made  of  it.2 

English  Answers. 

....  English  proponents  maintain  that  the  English  system  is  in- 
trinsically superior  to  the  Metric  because  its  fundamental  units,  such 
as  the  inch,  foot,  pound,  ton,  quart,  gallon,  have  developed  from  the 
eternal  process  of  a natural  selection  of  fittest  units  and  not  as  the 
result  of  a rigid  inflexible  plan;  because  it  multiplies  and  divides  its 
units  not  only  decimally  to  meet  certain  limited  needs  but  also  bi- 
narily  and  duodecimally  to  meet  other  and  much  more  extensive 
needs;  because  the  character  and  names  of  its  units  are  so  tied  in 
with  everyday  experience  that  they  are  readily  learned  and  retained; 
and  because  the  features  just  mentioned  make  the  English  system, 
as  compared  with  the  rigid  and  inflexible  Metric  system,  much  more 
comprehendible  to  the  average  mind,  and  more  convenient,  adaptable 
and  comprehensive  in  filling  the  needs  a system  of  weights  and  measures 
is  called  upon  to  fill.3 

In  this  connection  English  proponents  point  out  that  natural 
local  units  in  countries  the  world  over  are  closely  related  to  the 
units  of  the  English  system.4 

(b)  Present  Use  of  the  Metric  and  English  Systems 
Generally  and  in  Special  Fields. 

The  distribution  of  world  population5  on  the  basis  of  the  pre- 
dominant use  by  countries  of  the  Metric  and  English  systems 
shows  that  the  Metric  system  is  in  predominant  use  in  thirty- 
seven  countries6  with  a population  of  395,521,000;  th<  English 

iP.  136. 

’P.  137. 

»P.  140. 

4See  Diagram  I,  p.  7 of  the  Report. 

6See  Diagram  II,  p.  19  of  the  Report,  also  pp.  16-18  referring  to  this  diagram. 

^Argentina,  Austria,  Belgium,  Brazil,  Bulgaria,  Chili,  Congo,  Colombia,  Czecho- 
slovakia, Denmark,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Haiti,  Hungary,  Italy,  Jugo-Slavia, 
Latvia,  Liechtenstein,  Luxemburg,  Mexico,  Monaco,  Montenegro,  Netherlands,  Nica- 
ragua, Norway,  Paraguay,  Philippines,  Poland,  Portugal,  Roumania,  Spain,  Sweden, 
Switzerland,  Tunis,  Uruguay  and  Venezuela. 

3 


system  is  in  predominant  use  in  twelve  countries1  with  a popu- 
larion  of  343,557,000;  and  twenty-eight  countries2  with  a pop- 
ulation of  823,700,000  do  not  use  either  the  Metric  or  the  Eng- 
lish system  predominantly. 

The  distribution  of  world  export  trade3  in  1919,  according  to 
groups  of  countries  using  the  English  and  Metric  systems  shows 
that  English  countries  carried  on  48.2%  of  the  world’s  export 
trade;  Metric  countries  37.5%,  and  all  other  countries,  14.3%. 
This  statement  should  be  viewed  in  connection  with  the  follow- 
ing excerpt: 

Summing  up  the  whole  discussion  of  the  world-wide  aspects  of  the 
English  and  Metric  systems  in  foreign  trade,  it  appears  that  general 
export  and  import  figures,  trade  relations  between  English,  Metric 
and  other  countries,  and  the  nature  of  the  products  exported  from 
English  countries,  all  confirm  the  observation  already  made  that  the 
English  system  of  weights  and  measures  is  being  projected  into  Metric 
and  other  countries  to  a very  considerable  extent  through  the  export 
trade  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  and  that  the  reciprocal 
influence  of  the  Metric  system  is  much  smaller.4 

The  distribution  of  exports  from  the  United  States  in  1919, 
according  to  groups  of  countries  using  the  Metric  and  English 
systems  was  as  follows:5  Exports  to  European  Metric  countries, 
37.1%  of  the  total;  to  Latin  American  Metric  countries,  6.3%; 
to  Latin  American,  English  and  other  countries,  5.7%;  to  other 
English  countries,  41.9%;  and  to  all  other  countries,  9%.  This 
statement  should  be  considered  in  relation  to  the  following 
excerpt: 

. . . .The  interests  of  foreign  trade  are  naturally  along  the  line  of 
establishing  a uniform  system  of  weights  and  measures  the  world  over. 

So  long  as  substantial  uniformity  is  secured,  however,  there  is  no 
reason  why  this  field  should  prefer  any  one  system  over  another 
except  as  one  or  the  other  system  is  found  to  be  already  in  pre- 
dominant or  increasing  use.  The  facts  indicate  that  the  trade  of  the 
world  is  not  carried  on  more  in  the  Metric  system  than  it  is  in  the 
English  and  that,  as  a matter  of  fact,  the  English  system  predominates. 
Furthermore,  in  considering  a compulsory  change  to  the  Metric 

’Russia  (measures  of  length),  United  States,  Great  Britain,  Canada,  New  Zealand, 
South  Africa,  British  Guiana,  Australia,  Liberia,  Straits  Settlements,  Porto  Rico  and 
Santo  Domingo. 

2Abyssinia,  Afghanistan,  Armenia,  Bolivia,  China,  Costa  Rica,  Cuba,  Ecuador, 
Egypt,  Greece,  Guatemala,  Hedjaz,  Honduras,  India,  Japan,  Mesopotamia,  Morocco, 
Nepal,  Oman,  Palestine,  Panama,  Persia,  Peru,  Salvador,  Siam,  Syria,  Tripoli  and 
Turkey. 

3See  Diagram  III,  p.  105  of  the  Report. 

<P.  110. 

6See  Diagram  IV,  p.  113  of  the  Report. 

4 


system  in  the  United  States,  the  loss  of  the  nation’s  vast  trade  with 
English  and  other  countries  must  be  weighed  over  against  any  gain 
in  trade  that  might  be  secured  with  Metric  countries.1 

The  distribution  of  the  productive  population  in  special  fields 
of  activity  in  the  United  States  in  1910  indicates  that:2  In 
science  and  engineering,  500,000  people  were  engaged;  in  foreign 
and  wholesale  trade,  100,000;  in  agriculture,  mining,  transpor- 
tation, and  retail  trade,  19,700,000;  in  manufacturing  and 
construction,  10,600,000;  and  in  miscellaneous  fields,  i.  e.,  pro- 
fessional, service  and  clerical,  7,200,000.  In  the  first  two  special 
groups  mentioned,  representing  about  600,000  out  of  38,000,000 
productive  workers,  or  less  than  2%  of  the  total,  the  Metric 
system  is  used  to  a greater  or  less  extent  in  the  United  States; 
the  remaining  98%  use  the  English  system  almost  exclusively. 

(c)  Effect  on  American  Industry  Generally  and  on 
Fundamental  Mechanical  Standards  of  Substitution 
of  Metric  for  English  System. 

The  survey  in  Chapter  VIII  of  various  specific  manufacturing 
industries  serves  to  indicate  how  intimately  weights  and  measures 
are  tied  up  with  the  products  of  manufacture  and  how  widely  English 
units  are  used  in  various  industries  the  world  over.  In  textiles  the 
English  yarn  counts  (yard-pound)  are  used  in  practically  every 
country,  especially  in  the  cotton  industry.  In  metal  products,  English 
machine  standards  based  on  the  inch  predominate  even  in  Metric 
countries.  In  food  products  weights  and  measures  are  used  mainly 
in  packing  and  labeling  and  follow  the  customs  in  the  various  countries 
carrying  on  canning  industries,  the  tendency  in  the  United  States 
being  to  label  cans  in  both  English  and  Metric  measures.  In  lumber, 
the  inch  and  foot  (mainly  English  but  including  other  natural  inch 
systems),  prevail  almost  universally  in  the  cutting  of  boards.  In 
paper  and  printing,  type  sizes  have  been  standardized  in  the  United 
States,  France  and  elsewhere  on  the  basis  of  the  inch.  In  the  chemical 
industry  the  Metric  system  is  used  in  experimental  work,  but  hardly 
at  all  in  chemical  production,  the  machinery  employed  being  made 
largely  to  English  measurements  even  in  Metric  countries. 

It  has  been  brought  out  also,  through  an  examination  of  replies  to 
the  Board’s  questionnaire,  that  there  is  a decided  opposition  to  a 
change  to  the  Metric  system  among  manufacturers  in  the  United 
States.  The  textile  industries  expressed  themselves  as  completely 
satisfied  with  the  present  system  of  weights  and  measures  and  as 
opposed  to  efforts  to  change  it.  Over  90%  of  the  metal  products 
industry  registered  decided  opposition  to  a change.  The  food  products 
>P.  112. 

2See  Diagram  V,  p.  119  of  the  Report,  and  the  explanation  given  on  p.  118. 

5 


industry  showed  similar  opposition.  The  lumber  industry  was  like- 
wise opposed  and  emphasized  the  “great  confusion  and  incalculable 
expense”  that  would  result.  The  paper  and  printing,  automobile, 
railway-car,  shipbuilding,  and  implement  and  vehicle,  industries 
also  went  on  record  as  decidedly  adverse  to  any  change. 

The  manufacturing  field,  employing  as  it  does  over  10,500,000 
workers,  and  producing  commodities  valued  at  something  like  $25,- 
000,000,000  annually,  is  unquestionably  one  of  the  most  important 
fields  of  industry  in  the  United  States.  The  indications  are  that  a 
compulsory  change  to  the  Metric  system  would  profoundly  affect 
many  manufacturing  lines,  especially  during  the  period  of  transistion, 
which  the  experience  of  other  countries  suggests  would  be  very  long. 
The  interests  and  desires  of  such  an  important  field  and  the  effect 
of  a change  in  weights  and  measures  upon  it  should  naturally  be  care- 
fully weighed  in  considering  the  advisability  of  a compulsory  change.1 

Metric  Contentions. 

Metric  proponents  maintain  that  a change  to  the  Metric  system 
would  not  necessarily  mean  the  destruction  and  discarding  of  the 
present  system  of  mechanical  standards  or  the  equipment  embodying 
it;  that  it  would  involve  in  large  part  merely  the  expression  of  present 
standards  in  Metric  terms;  and  that  in  so  far  as  any  alteration  or 
destruction  became  advisable,  it  could  be  affected  gradually  and 
without  confusion  as  the  equipment  in  question  wore  out  and  had 
to  be  replaced.2 

English  Answers. 

. . . .English  proponents  contend,  first,  that  all  available  evidence 
based  upon  the  experience  of  other  countries  indicates  that  the  sub- 
stitution of  Metric  designations  for  existing  sizes  and  the  actual 
replacement  of  English  with  new  Metric  equipment  is  impracticable, 
and  secondly,  that  if  the  United  States  is  contemplating  a change  in 
systems  it  must  face  the  fact  of  the  destruction  of  existing  mechanical 
standards.  In  addition,  they  insist  that  following  the  change  there 
would  necessarily  be  a long  aftermath  during  which  the  mechanical 
industries  of  the  country  would  suffer  from  a tremendous  confusion 
and  the  laborious  undertaking  of  rebuilding  new  standards  in  another 
system.3 


(d)  Effect  of  Such  Substitution  on  the  General  Public. 

The  following  brief  excerpt  contains  a general  statement  of 
fact  only.  Arguments  are  to  be  found  in  several  places  in  the 
Report.4 


'Pp.  100-101.  See  also  pp.  97-100  on  “Relation  to  Question  of  Change  in  United 
States.” 

-P.  173.  For  detailed  Metric  contentions  and  English  answers  on  this  point  see  pages 
173-180  of  Report.  See  all  important  considerations  mentioned  on  pp.  50-51. 

»P.  180. 


■•See  pp.  66-/7;  148-150;  169-170  in  respect  to  agriculture,  mining,  transportation  and 

trade. 


6 


There  is  another  effect.  . . .that  the  change  would  have,  which,  as 
it  pertains  to  transportation  and  retail  trade  particularly,  is  of  para- 
mount importance.  This  would  have  to  do  with  changing  the  habits 
not  only  of  those  engaged  in  these  fields,  but  also  of  those  that 
constitute  the  traveling  and  buying  public.  In  1910  there  were 
about  71,500,000  people  in  the  United  States  ten  years  of  age  and 
over.  Most  of  these  in  their  everyday  activities  engage  in  traveling 
and  in  the  retail  purchasing  of  consumable  goods.  With  trade  prac- 
tices as  bearing  on  weights  and  measures  changed  by  compulsory  law, 
the  habits  of  the  entire  buying  and  traveling  public,  as  well  as  of  those 
directly  engaged  in  selling  and  transporting  goods,  would  be  affected.  . 

...  .In  the  four  fields1  treated  in  this  chapter,  such  little  demand 
as  exists  for  a change  to  the  Metric  system  comes  from  those  engaged 
in  wholesale  trade,  who,  as  has  been  noted,  comprise  a very  small 
group,  comparatively  speaking.  There  is  practically  no  sentiment  in 
favor  of  a change  to  be  found  in  the  other  fields  discussed.2 

(e)  Cost  of  Such  Substitution.3 

Metric  Contentions. 

Metric  proponents  contend  in  general  that  the  cost  of  a change  to 
the  Metric  system  has  been  greatly  overestimated.  Such  a change 
would  involve,  they  assert,  merely  the  translation  of  literature  and 
catalogs,  which,  in  view  of  the  existing  Metric  literature,  would  not 
be  difficult,  and  the  replacement  of  present  weights,  measures  and 
scales,  affecting  chiefly  the  field  of  domestic  trade,  rather  than  any 
serious  destruction  of  equipment....4 

English  Answers. 

....  English  proponents  claim,  since  a compulsory  change  to  the 
Metric  system  under  any  form  of  compulsory  law  would  necessarily 
entail  the  discarding  or  alteration  of  a large  part  of  the  basic  me- 
chanical equipment  of  the  manufacturing  industries  of  the  country, 
compel  the  replacement  of  scales  and  measuring  instruments  in  use 
among  all  classes  of  people,  and  require  a period  of  training  in  the 
use  of  the  new  system,  which  period  would  involve  errors  and  reduce 
efficiency — the  only  result  of  the  compulsory  adoption  of  the  Metric 
system  would  be  to  drag  the  country  into  an  enormous  expenditure  and 
waste  without  providing  any  compensatory  advantages.5 

(f)  Length  of  Transition  Period  as  Experienced  in 
Making  Similar  Change  in  Other  Countries. 

Metric  Contentions. 

Proponents  of  the  metric  system  declare  that,  in  general,  the  experi- 

'See  pp.  66-77;  148-150;  169-170  in  respect  to  agriculture,  mining,  transportation 

and  trade. 

’Pp.  76-77. 

sFor  detailed  testimony  regarding  the  cost  of  a change,  see  pp.  180-188  of  Report. 

«P.  180. 

5P.  188. 


7 


ence  of  other  countries  demonstrates  that  the  difficulties  involved  in 
such  a change  are  greatly  exaggerated  by  supporters  of  the  English 
system  and  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  would  adopt  the  new 
units  without  serious  confusion  after  a relatively  short  transition  period, 
especially  if  the  legislation  requiring  the  use  of  the  metric  system  were 
limited  at  first  to  certain  activities  and  gradually  broadened  in  scope.1 

Metric  advocates  assert  also  that  in  countries  where  the  Metric  sys- 
tem has  been  adopted,  difficulty  in  making  the  change  has  been  evi- 
denced only  among  ignorant  people  and  that  the  retention  of  ancient 
units  in  these  countries  and  among  such  classes  does  not  constitute  an 
argument  against  a change.  The  mere  fact,  they  say,  that  the  use 
of  ancient  terms  continues  in  certain  isolated  industries  and  communi- 
ties carries  no  more  weight  than  does  the  fact  that  we  still  retain  Roman 
numerals  on  our  watch  faces  or  that  the  Gregorian  calendar  has  not 
yet  entirely  desplaced  the  Julian  calendar  or  that  older  units  remained 
in  use  for  a generation  after  the  adoption  of  our  decimal  currency  in 
the  United  States. 

In  view  of  the  simplicity  and  ease  of  use  of  the  Metric  system  as  pre- 
viously set  forth,  they  maintain,  it  is  unlikely  that  any  class  of  the  edu- 
cated population  in  the  United  States  would  find  the  s)rstem  difficult  to 
acquire  in  a short  time.  On  the  contrary  the  uniformity  and  stand- 
ardization which  the  metric  system  of  measures  would  bring,  they  con- 
tinue, would  make  the  people  of  the  country  welcome  such  a change 
and  adapt  themselves  to  it  quickly.2 

English  Answers. 

English  proponents  maintain  that  the  experience  of  other  countries 
and  a consideration  of  the  situation  in  the  United  States  show  that  the 
change  to  the  Metric  system  would  involve  enormous  disturbance  to 
the  eve  yday  habits  and  customs  of  the  whole  buying  and  traveling 
population  of  the  country  and  would  create  untold  confusion  in  business 
practices  which  would  require  a long  transition  period  to  overcome,  no 
matter  how  compulsory  legislation  were  applied. 

In  the  first  place,  the  assertion  of  pro-Metrics  that  a change  in  other 
countries  has  been  easily  and  quickly  made  is  flatly  denied.  They  cite 
the  general  difficulties  involved  in  a change  as  indicated  by  the  contin- 
ued and  extensive  use  of  the  old  units  in  Metric  countries,  statements 
from  United  States  Consuls  stationed  in  these  countries,  and  from  in- 
dividual engineers,  commerce  officials,  and  others  who  have  made  a 
study  of  the  use  of  weights  and  measures  in  such  countries. 

In  further  answer  to  the  Metric  contention  that  various  Metric  coun- 
tries have  easily  and  quickly  secured,  by  the  adoption  of  the  Metric 
system,  uniformity  of  weights  and  measures  and  the  suppression  of  the 
many  and  varied  local  systems  in  the  country,  proponents  of  the  English 
system  call  attention  to  two  facts,  First,  they  point  out  that  even  where 

iPp.  161-2.  For  detailed  arguments  based  on  experience  of  other  countries,  see  pp. 

162-164. 
dPp.  163-4. 

8 


a substantial  degree  of  uniformity  exists  in  a Metric  country,  today, 
experience  of  all  Metric  countries  proves  that  a long  transition  period, 
ranging  from  25  to  100  years  is  necessarily  involved  in  making  a change 
in  systems,  during  which  period  the  country  is  forced  to  contend  with 
a confusion  resulting  from  the  extensive  use  of  local  measures  along 
with  the  attempted  enforcement  of  the  compulsory  Metric  law.  France 
is  pointed  to  as  a preeminent  example  of  such  difficulty,  confusion,  and 
lack  of  uniformity.  In  the  next  place,  proponents  of  the  English  sys- 
tem point  out  that  whereas  most  Metric  countries  had  no  national  uni- 
formity of  weights  and  measures  before  the  Metric  system  was  adopted, 
the  United  States  now  has  and  has  had  for  many  years  a standardized 
and  thoroughly  unified  system  which  is  solidly  incorporated  in  its  man- 
ufacturing and  basic  industries  and  business  life,  and  deeply  ingrained 
in  the  habits  of  the  people.  For  these  reasons,  English  proponents 
point  out,  if  it  has  been  difficult  to  suppress  older  units  in  other  coun- 
tries which  have  adopted  the  Metric  system,  still  greater  difficulty  is  to 
be  expected  in  the  United  States....1 

(g)  Need  for  Compulsory  Legislation  to  Effect 
Such  a Change. 

Metric  Contentions. 

....Metric  proponents  contend  that  the  manner  in  which  the  change  is 
brought  about  could  be  adjusted  so  that  it  would  take  place  in  easy 
stages  and  cause  little  confusion  or  inconvenience  to  any  of  the  various 
interests  of  the  country.  By  first  requiring  its  use  in  government 
departments  and  in  the  schools,  they  say,  manufacturers  and  the  public 
generally  could  gradually  familiarize  themselves  with  it  and  adapt 
themselves  to  it.  Following  this,  its  use  might  be  extended  by  legis- 
lation to  domestic  trade.  In  this  way  the  manufacturing  field  would 
be  given  ample  time  and  inducement  to  adopt  the  system  voluntarily...2 

English  Answers. 

....English  proponents  maintain  that  the  experience  of  other  countries 
conclusively  shows  that  the  difficulties  arising  from  a drastic  change 
in  the  habits  of  the  people,  from  the  necessity  of  revising  the  technical 
literatu  e of  the  country,  and  from  the  confusion  incident  to  the  use 
of  :wo  systems  side  by  side  during  the  long  period  of  transition  neces- 
sary, would  be  insurmountable  no  matter  what  form  of  compulsory  law 
were  adopted  to  compel  the  use  of  the  Metric  system,  and  the  fact  that 
compulsory  law  is  invariably  required  to  bring  about  a change,  as 
shown  by  the  experience  of  other  countries,  demonstrates  that  the 
system  has  no  advantage  which  would  lead  people  to  adopt  it  volun- 
tarily. 

In  any  case,  English  advocates  contend,  no  compulsory  law  of  any 
kind  would  be  necessary  if  the  Metric  system  possessed  the  advantages 

tPp.  165,  168-169.  For  detailed  testimony  as  to  experience  of  other  countries,  see 
pp.  165-8. 

2P.  164.  For  detailed  metric  arguments  and  testimony  on  both  sides  regarding  the 
experience  of  other  countries,  see  pp.  161-172. 

9 


claimed  for  it.  It  is  already  permissible,  they  point  out,  for  any  one 
who  wishes  to  use  the  Metric  system  to  do  so,  and  if  he  system  had  any 
merits  which  recommended  it  conclusively  to  the  public,  no  difficulties 
would  long  stand  in  the  way  of  its  adoption  and  no  gradual  extension  of 
compulsion  would  be  needed.  Standards  of  screw  and  pipe  threads, 
for  instance,  were  freely  adopted  when  the  advantages  of  them  were 
recognized,  and  manufacturers  have  voluntarily  scrapped  thousands 
of  dollars  worth  of  machinery  when  it  was  deemed  desirable  to  do  so. 

In  short,  if  the  Metric  system  were  a superior  system  it  would  long  since 
have  come  into  use  without  the  necessity  of  compulsory  law.1 

(h)  Nature  and  Extent  of  Demand  for  a Change.3 

Metric  Contentions. 

Metric  proponents  maintain  that  there  is  a strong  and  growing 
demand  for  a change  to  the  Metric  system  in  this  country.  This  de- 
mand is  evidenced,  they  say,  among  all  classes  of  people,  a growing 
tendency  being  noted  among  the  manufacturing  industries  to  favor 
this  system  in  place  of  the  English.  Long  lists  of  names  are  presented 
in  connection  with  these  contentions,  and  the  opinions  of  a number 
of  manufacturers  are  also  cited.  Finally  it  is  contended  that  what  is  true 
in  the  United  States  is  likewise  true  in  Great  Britain,  viz.,  that  there 
is  a widespread  demand  there  also  in  favor  of  a change  to  the  Metric 
system . .3 

English  Answers. 

....English  advocates  deny  that  there  is  any  demand  worthy  of  serious 
consideration  in  favor  of  a change  to  the  Metric  system  in  this  country 
and  point  out  that  what  little  demand  exists  comes  from  teachers, 
scientists  and  a few  others  representing  in  all  an  extremely  small 
group,  not  more  than  one-tenth  of  one  per  cent  of  the  whole  population 
— and  that  even  this  group  is  divided.  Metric  proponents,  they  say, 
have  simply  been  exploiting  a limited  sentiment  to  make  it  appear 
that  a strong  demand  for  a change  exists,  have  left  the  large  and 
important  fields  of  agriculture,  mining,  transportation,  and  trade 
entirely  out  of  consideration,  and  have  ignored  the  extremely  important 
fact  that  manufacturers  and  business  men  generally  are  strongly  op- 
posed to  a change. . . 4 

(i)  Comparison  of  Metric  and  English  Systems  for 

Universal  Use.6 

Metric  Contentions. 

Metric  proponents  contend  that  the  use  of  the  Metric  system  and 
opinion  in  favor  of  it  is  steadily  increasing  in  Great  Britain  and  the 

ffip.  172-3. 

2For  detailed  arguments  on  both  sides  including  actual  testimony  and  resolutions  of 

manufacturers,  associations,  etc.,  see  pp.  189-198. 

’P.  189. 

‘P.  198. 

5For  detailed  arguments  under  this  heading  see  pp.  199-211  of  report. 

10 


United  States,  that  there  is  a growing  realization  that  the  English  sys- 
tem is  crude  and  confusing  and  that  the  adoption  of  the  Metric  system 
in  these  countries  would  eliminate  this  confusion  and  secure  world 
uniformity.1 

English  Answers. 

Proponents  of  the  English  system  repeat  their  denial,  elaborated  in 
the  preceding  chapter,  that  there  is  any  demand  worthy  of  serious  con- 
sideration in  favor  of  the  Metric  system  in  Great  Britain  and  the 
United  States,  and  contend  that,  on  the  contrary,  there  is  increasing 
indication  that  the  English  system,  with  slight  modifications,  is  com- 
ing to  be  fully  recognized  as  the  ideal  system . . 

Regarding  the  assertion  that  there  is  considerable  confusion  among 
the  units  of  the  English  system  and  that  people  are  increasingly 
realizing  this,  proponents  of  the  English  system  insist  that  this  is  abso- 
lutely false,  that  as  a matter  of  fact  there  is  no  ambiguity  between 
dry  and  liquid  measures  and  avoirdupois  and  troy  weights,  since  these 
are  used  only  with  respect  to  certain  well-defined  classes  of  material 
known  to  everyone,  i.  e.,  the  troy  pound  and  the  apothecaries’  pound 
are  never  used  in  commerce;  the  troy  ounce  is  the  unit  used  for  weigh- 
ing gold  and  silver  and  the  apothecaries’  weight  does  not  exist  outside 
of  its  use  in  drug  stores.  Futhermore,  where  the  several  states  have 
passed  statutes  establishing  certain  seemingly  arbitrary  and  irregular 
measures,  advocates  of  the  English  system  continue,  these  relate  in  the 
main  to  the  measurement  of  agricultural  products  such  as  wheat,  pota- 
toes, apples,  etc.,  and  most  of  them  consist  in  defining  the  weight  per 
barrel  or  bushel  or  peck.  Obviously,  they  say,  these  differences  in 
weight  are  inherent  in  the  nature  of  the  merchandize  to  be  measured, 
varying  with  its  specific  gravity,  and  have  nothing  to  do  with  any  sys- 
tem of  weights,  measures,  or  volume.  What  is  needed  with  respect  to 
merchandize  and  other  products  also,  is  a more  thorough-going  stand- 
ardization of  the  practices  employed,  and  this  applies  with  even  more 
force  where  the  Metric  system  is  used  than  in  English-speaking 
countries,  since  in  the  latter  the  process  of  standardization  has  pro- 
ceeded much  farther  than  in  Metric  countries.2 

In  conclusion,  it  must  be  re-emphasized  that  the  excerpts 
given  in  this  Digest  are  severed  from  their  context,  and  that  only 
a full  perusal  of  the  whole  report  will  provide  a proper  basis  for 
the  final  evaluation  of  the  merits  of  the  two  alternatives  with 
respect  to  weights  and  measures,  namely: 

Will  the  United  States  be  benefited  more  by  a continuance  of 
the  present  conditions  under  which  the  English  system  remains 
in  general  use  with  the  Metric  system  permissive , or  by  the 
compulsory  establishment  of  the  Metric  system  as  the  sole  and 
only  standard  ? 

>P.  207. 

2Pp.  208,  209. 


11 


PUBLICATIONS 

OF  THE 

NATIONAL  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE  BOARD 


{Prices  given  are  for  paper-bound  copies;  cloth  binding  fifty  cents  additional) 

Research  Reports 

Research  Report  No.  I . Workmen’s  Compensation  Acts  in  the  United  States — The  Legal 
Phase.  60  pages.  April,  1917.  Revised,  August,  1919.  $1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  2.  Analysis  of  British  Wartime  Reports  on  Hours  of  Work  as  Related 
to  Output  and  Fatigue.  58  pages.  November,  1917.  $1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  j.  Strikes  in  American  Industry  in  Wartime.  20  pages.  March,  1918. 
50  cents. 

Research  Report  No.  4.  Hours  of  Work  as  Related  to  Output  and  Health  of  Workers — 
Cotton  Manufacturing.  64  pages.  March,  1918.  $1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  5.  The  Canadian  Industrial  Disputes  Investigation  Act.  28  pages, 
April,  1918.  50  cents. 

Research  Report  No.  6.  Sickness  Insurance  or  Sickness  Prevention?  24  pages.  May,  1918, 
50  cents. 

Research  Report  No.  7.  Hours  of  Work  as  Related  to  Output  and  Health  of  Workers — 
Boot  and  Shoe  Industry.  76  pages.  June,  1918.  $1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  8.  Wartime  Employment  of  Women  in  the  Metal  Trades.  80  pages. 
July,  1918.  $1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  9.  Wartime  Changes  in  the  Cost  of  Living:  July,  1914  — June,  1918. 
82  pages.  August,  1918.  $1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  10.  Arbitration  and  Wage-Fixing  in  Australia.  52  pages.  October,  1918. 

$1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  II.  The  Eight-Hour  Day  Defined.  12  pages.  December,  1918.  50  cents. 
Research  Report  No.  12.  Hours  of  Work  as  Related  to  Output  and  Health  of  Workers — 
Wool  Manufacturing.  69  pages.  December,  1918.  $1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  13.  Rest  Periods  for  Industrial  Workers.  55  pages.  January,  1919. 

$1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  14.  Wartime  Changes  in  the  Cost  of  Living:  July,  1914  — November, 

1918.  33  pages.  February,  1919.  75  cents. 

Research  Report  No.  13.  Problems  of  Industrial  Readjustment  in  the  United  States.  58 
pages.  February,  1919.  $1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  16.  Hours  of  Work  as  Related  to  Output  and  Health  of  Workers — 
Silk  Manufacturing.  54  pages.  March,  1919.  $1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  Ip.  Wartime  Changes  in  the  Cost  of  Living:  July,  1914  — March,  1919. 
31  pages.  May,  1919.  75  cents. 

Research  Report  No.  18.  Hours  of  Work  as  Related  to  Output  and  Health  of  Workers — 
Metal  Manufacturing  Industries.  62  pages.  July,  1919.  $1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  19.  Changes  in  the  Cost  of  Living:  July,  1914  — July,  1919.  31  pages. 
September,  1919.  75  cents 

Research  Report  No.  20.  Wartime  Changes  in  Wages:  September,  1914 — March,  1919.  128 
pages.  September,  1919.  $1.50. 

Research  Report  No.  21 . Works  Councils  in  the  United  States.  135  pages.  October,  1919. 
$1.50. 

Research  Report  No.  22.  The  Cost  of  Living  Among  Wage-Earners — Fall  River,  Massachu- 
setts, October,  1919.  18  pages.  November,  1919.  50  cents. 

Research  Report  No.  2 ?.  Conciliation  and  Arbitration  in  New  Zealand.  46  pages.  December, 

1919.  $1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  24.  The  Cost  of  Living  Among  Wage-Earners  — Lawrence,  Massachu- 
setts, November,  1919.  21  pages.  December,  1919.  50  cents. 

Research  Report  No.  23.  Changes  in  the  Cost  of  Living:  July,  1914 — November,  1919.  24 
pages.  December,  1919.  75  cents. 

Research  Report  No.  26.  A Works  Council  Manual.  32  pages.  February,  1920.  $1.00. 
Research  Report  No.  27 . The  Hours  of  Work  Problem  in  Five  Major  Industries.  91  pages. 
March,  1920.  $1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  28.  Changes  in  the  Cost  of  Living:  July, 1914  — March, 1920.  24pages. 
May,  1920.  75  cents. 

Research  Report  No.  29.  Practical  Experience  with  Profit-Sharing  in  Industrial  Establish- 
ments. 86  pages.  June,  1920.  $1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  30.  Changes  in  the  Cost  of  Living:  July,  1914  — July,  1920.  28  pages. 
September,  1920.  75  cents. 

Research  Report  A To.  31 . Changes  in  Wages  During  and  Since  the  War — September,  1914,  to 
March,  1920.  54  pages.  September,  1920.  $1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  32.  Practical  Experience  with  the  WorkWeek  of  Forty-eight  Hours 
or  Less.  96  pages.  December,  1920.  $1.00. 


PUBLICATIONS — continued. 

Research  Report  No.  33.  Changes  in  the  Cost  of  Living:  July,  1914  — November,  1920.  29 
pages.  December,  1920.  75  cents. 

Research  Report  No.  34.  Health  Service  in  Industry.  64  pages.  January,  1921.  $1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  35.  Wage  Changes  in  Industry:  September,  1914 — December,  1920. 
50  pages.  March,  1921.  $1.00. 

Research  Report  No.  36.  Changes  in  the  Cost  of  Living:  July;  1914  — March,  1921.  28 

pages.  April,  1921.  75  cents. 

Research  Report  No.  37.  Cost  Of  Health  Service  in  Industry.  36  pages.  May,  1921.  21.00. 
Research  Report  No.  38.  Experience  With  Trade  Union  Agreements — Clothing  Industries. 
135  pages.  June,  1921.  $1.50. 

Research  Report  No.  39.  Changes  in  the  Cost  of  Living:  July,  1914 — July,  1921.  25  pages. 

August,  1921.  75  cents. 

Research  Report  No.  40.  Wages  in  Great  Britain,  France  and  Germany.  113  pages.  Au- 
gust, 1921.  $1.50. 

Research  Report  No.  41.  Family  Budgets  of  American  Wage-Earners:  A Critical  An- 
alysis. 103  pages.  September,  1921.  21.00. 

Research  Report  No.  42.  The  Metric  versus  the  English  System  of  Weights  and  Measures. 
250  pages.  October,  1921.  $2.50. 

Research  Report  No.  43.  Aspects  of  the  Unemployment  Problem.  November,  1921.  (In  press.) 

Special  Reports 

Special  Report  No.  /.  A Case  of  Federal  Propaganda  in  Our  Public  Schools.  13  pages. 
February,  1919.  50  cents. 

Special  Report  No.  2.  War  Revenue  Act  of  1918  (A  Brief  Analysis).  18  pages.  March, 
1919.  50  cents. 

Special  Report  No.  3.  Interim  Report  of  the  European  Commission  of  the  National  Indus- 
trial Conference  Board.  34  pages.  July,  1919.  50  cents. 

Special  Report  No.  4.  Is  Compulsory  Health  Insurance  Desirable?  12  pages.  October, 

1919.  50  cents. 

Special  Report  No.  5.  Vital  Issues  in  the  Industrial  Conference  at  Washington,  D.  C., 
15  pages.  November,  1919.  50  cents. 

Special  Report  No.  6.  Problems  of  Labor  and  Industry  in  Great  Britain,  France,  and  Italy. 

Report  of  the  European  Commission.  406  pages.  November,  1919.  $2.50. 

Special  Report  No.  7.  The  Cost  of  Living  Among  Wage-Earners — North  Hudson  County 
New  Jersey,  January,  1920.  20  pages.  March,  1920.  50  cents. 

Special  Report  No.  8.  The  Cost  of  Living  Among  Wage-Earners — Greenville  and  Pelzer, 
South  Carolina,  and  Charlotte,  North  Carolina,  January  and  February,  1920.  25 

pages.  May,  1920.  50  cents. 

Special  Report  No.  9.  Proceedings  of  the  National  Industrial  Tax  Conference  at  Chicago, 
Illinois,  April  16,  1920.  113  pages.  May,  1920.  $1.00. 

Special  Report  No.  10.  Should  Trade  Unions  and  Employers’ Associations  Be  Made  Legally 
Responsible?  35  pages.  June,  1920.  75  cents. 

Special  Report  No.  II.  The  Closed  Union  Shop  Versus  the  Open  Shop:  Their  Social  and 
Economic  Value  Compared.  27  pages.  July,  1920.  75  cents. 

Special  Report  No.  12.  Should  the  State  Interfere  in  the  Determination  of  Wage  Rates? 
150  pages.  August,  1920.  $1.50. 

Special  Report  No.  13.  The  Cost  of  Living  Among  Wage-Earners — Cincinnati,  Ohio,  May, 

1920.  18  pages.  July,  1920.  50  cents. 

Special  Report  No.  14.  Unwarranted  Conclusions  Regarding  the  Eight-Hour  and  Ten-Hour 
Workday.  21  pages.  August,  1920.  50  cents. 

Special  Report  No.  15.  Problems  of  Labor  and  Industry  in  Germany.  65  pages.  September, 
1920.  $1.00. 

Special  Report  No.  16.  The  Cost  of  Living  Among  Wage-Earners — Worcester,  Massachu- 
setts, June,  1920  20  pages.  October,  1920.  50  cents. 

Special  Report  No.  Ip.  Proceedings  of  the  Second  National  Industrial  Tax  Conference  . 

New  York,  October  22  and  23,  1920.  200  pages.  November,  1920.  S1.50. 

Special  Report  No.  18.  Report  of  the  Tax  Committee  of  the  National  Industrial  Conference 
Board,  on  the  Federal  Tax  Problem.  58  pages.  December,  1920  75  cents. 

Special  Report  No.  19.  The  Cost  of  Living  Among  Wage-Earners — Detroit,  Michigan. 

September,  1921.  22  pages.  October,  1921.  50  cents. 

Special  Report  No.  20.  A Digest  of  “The  Metric  versus  the  English  System  of  Weights ‘and 
Measures,”  from  Research  Report  No.  42.  12  pages.  December,  1921.  25  cents. 

INDUSTRIAL  NEWS  SURVEY 
Important  industrial  news  in  concise  form.  A Digest 
of  Industrial  News  and  Comment  as  Published  in 
Reliable  Newspapers,  Magazines,  Reviews,  Special 
Articles,  and  Government  Documents. 

Weekly.  $2.00  per  year. 


Date  Due 

OCT  1 2 ft 

L.  3.  Cat.  No.  1 137 

